AHC/WI Singapore of the Caribbean

I believe the term is "racist"—I'm sure had this forum existed a hundred years ago, you would've fit well into the crowd that associated the Chinese with disorder (see the origin of "Chinese fire drill"). But no, I'm sure culture is more important than trade patterns or anything like that.

"Yes sir,I'm from the PC Police. You're charged with using hurting others feelings. Yeah we got a 10-87 micro racial agression" go to chat and cry racism.
 
Not to be overly "culturalist" but you'd need a different demographic. What makes Singapore successful vs. it's Malay and Indonesian neighbours is its Chinese population and cultural/business work ethic.

The most productive Malaysian city, Kuala Lumpur has a GDP of US$24K, while Singapore has a GDP of US$55K. And it's quickly downhill for the rest of the Malay cities. As with Malaya/Indonesia's Muslim/Polynesian roots, the Caribbean cities suffer under the low productivity of the Caribbean culture.

In order for a Singapore in the Caribbean to take place we need to move more productive people there. How about Britain makes a Jewish homeland out of one of its islands? Or, one island is populated by Scots instead of slaves?
Are you honestly for real? Plumber's got your number.
I believe the term is "racist".
 
Are you honestly for real? Plumber's got your number.
Regardless of intentions, the reader gets to set the meaning, not the author; so if I came across as racist, then I must accept that accusation and endeavour to do better. All I can say is that wasn't my intention - I simply wanted to convey that IMO Singapore benefited by both having a single culture and avoiding much of the detriments of colonial and ex-colonial exploitation suffered by its neighbours and by those in the subject region. Looking at the above quote, I must admit my blanket statements on Caribbean productivity were offensively out of line. Lastly, I apologise to the OP for taking this otherwise very interesting thread through the OT mud.
 
Last edited:
Panama is probably everyone's best bets. It's already the second fastest-growing economy of Latin America, after Chile (this is an average from 1980 to 2010). Its main problem is that the overland connections to the rest of Central America are terrible, and it's difficult to develop such connections, because of the elevation differences and the risk of deforestation and what it would do to the canal's water reservoirs.
Looking at the map below from 2010, it appears that rail connections could be made to Panama.

south_america_rail.jpg
 
Looking at the map below from 2010, it appears that rail connections could be made to Panama.

The border between Panama and Colombia is called the Darien Gap, and doesn't even have a road, let alone a rail line. It's undeveloped rainforest.

By the way, Venezuela was a developed country in the 1950s. Its per capita economic growth since 1960 has been zero (link). Given this, it could never have been the Singapore of Latin America; at most it could have been the UAE - another oil exporter with decades of economic stagnation, but one that's managed to diversify to some extent and stabilize at a high income level.
 
Top